(0:00 - 0:09) Hello, I'm Dr. Mark Trozzi. Hello, and my name is Christof Plothe. And this is TruthRx on the Iron Wire Daily. (0:10 - 0:30) The agriculture industry is desperate for a silver bullet to justify its emissions, and they think they have found one. Bovaer 3-nitrooxypropanol, a drug or synthetic feed additive that suppresses methane production in cows. The European Union has fast-tracked its approval. (0:31 - 0:41) Corporations are hyping it as a game-changer. The governments see it as an easy way to hit climate targets while maintaining some form of meat products for the population. For now. (0:42 - 1:09) But behind the greenwashing, we find ugly truth. We're going to try to shine some light on this subject and that truth. Yeah, well, thanks for the introduction, Mark, because it's actually going to be a subject that should concern all of us here, because in the EU, they're thinking of making it mandatory. (1:09 - 1:53) In fact, they did already, and they want to impose it on all of us here by the year 2030. So we should better look into this topic, because do we really need a methane-reducing feed additive in our food chain? So let's look at the safety, let's look at the ethic, let's look at the real environmental impact, and let's dig into the topic. I think it's really important, Christof, because we've got the health of the cows, the existence of a food supply, and the health of the people that eat those cows, as well as the environment those cows live in, all should be considered before doing something this radical across a continent. (1:54 - 3:01) Absolutely. And if we look at the current experiment that's being done with our genetics, and they've experimented with animals, with plants, and now with humans with it, and we know from biology in high school that we should be a little bit more humble, because we're not even ready to understand the full complexity of what it comes to the genome, but the microbiome actually is as diverse, and we both know Sabine Hazan, yeah, the specialist, one of the leading voices in the microbiome world, who said recently, well, we're just at the beginning to understand, and now this intervention actually rightly messes with our microbiome. And here's a statement from Rob Knight, he's one of the leading microbiome researchers, and said, we're just beginning to understand the microbiome's role in health and disease. (3:01 - 3:43) It's like we've discovered a new organ, but we're still figuring out how it works. And that's basically where we are. So just to give you a short introduction of how humble we should actually be with this topic, and can we really tolerate that an untested chemical compound is fed to cows, and we'll look at the manipulation of the microbiome, and we'll look at the fact that it can be passed on by the milk to our children, that it can show cancer-causing properties in animals, that it causes infertility in animals, that it is not tested on safety for the environment, and its use must be questioned in the first place. (3:43 - 3:50) So yeah, hold on to what we're going to show you and make up your own mind. Excellent. Let's do that, folks. (3:50 - 4:00) Let's dive in. If we're going to first do no harm, we better look at what we're talking about. And yeah, you see a beautiful picture of a wonderful cow. (4:00 - 4:13) They're always in ads. So basically, when looking at this cow here, in ads, they're always happy. But in fact, most cows are not really happy when it comes to industrial farming nowadays. (4:14 - 4:26) And it's not cows versus cows. It's good farming versus bad farming. One thing that's completely overlooked at looking at this topic. (4:26 - 4:39) Next. So have we heard this in the last few years? Is it safe and effective? Well, we should ask the same question with this new challenge to our food supply. Next. (4:41 - 5:03) Do you want to take over? Well, so this compound that we're talking about, this drug, or some places being labeled as a feed additive, I guess, to pacify, sort of like labeling a genetic injection as a safe and effective vaccine, perhaps. But this Bovaer is actually a drug called 3-nitrooxypropanol. And so that's what we're talking about. (5:03 - 5:26) And if you have a look here at its classification, its GHS classification, one of the things you see is a big alert about health. So clearly there's an issue here. So as we said in the intro, the UK government is mandated Bovaer for all cows until 2030. (5:27 - 5:40) And we'll show you that it's not just about the cows that we have to be worried about, but it's also where this additive ends up. And that's the environment. And that's us, humans. (5:41 - 6:04) Next. Can I just ask for clarification, Christof? Are they mandating that it must be in place for all cows by 2030, or that they're saying it has to be in them now and at least until 2030? Well, by 2030. And yeah, more and more people are changing because there's lots of incentives to do so. (6:04 - 6:28) And of course, it sounds great that we save our planet and the universe, yeah, and the climate. But yeah, their aim is to have all cows, even if it's organic or non-organic, it doesn't really matter, yeah, being equipped with this additives by 2030. It's quite interesting, you know, things that are desirable, people tend to seek them out for good reasons. (6:29 - 6:50) For instance, I go to the store and get vitamin D for my family because I've done my homework and I know how much vitamin D benefits them. It's interesting that things that, in my opinion, a lot of things that turn out to be a very bad idea. For instance, the misrepresented genetic injections for COVID that have caused more death and injury than anything medical in history by far. (6:52 - 7:01) People were mandated. Governments were used to say, everybody's got to have this shot. And so we're talking again about mandating something. (7:01 - 7:12) We're not saying that they're reaching out to farmers everywhere and saying, we've got a wonderful thing for you to consider. We're saying, you're going to have cows, you're going to feed them this. Always concerning authoritarian type of thing. (7:12 - 7:32) But let's look into this further. I mean, you just mentioned it in the introduction, whenever they talk of fast track approval and mandating nowadays, all our red alert signs should be flashing all the time. As you said, if it makes sense, we would all just do it. (7:33 - 7:58) We would all get our vitamin D. But would we grasp our portion of Bovaer? That's another thing. So what's about that project? Methane elimination anyway. Well, there's one guy, you can see him on the left lower corner that pops up each time we talk about that topic. (7:59 - 8:20) And the first idea that they had with the cows, because they've done that with humans, so why not doing it with cows? They gave them their plans was to give them face masks. And even if you haven't heard of this, it may sound like quite a ridiculous idea. It's actually not. (8:20 - 8:38) They're doing this. And even Prince Charles backs up this idea of giving cows face masks and to help to save the planet one burp at a time, as the paper here indicates. So that's idea number one. (8:38 - 9:14) Number two, so that's, yeah, go ahead. So this is idea number two with the interference with cattle by the globalists, which is how a fart vaccine could help tackle climate change. So they're literally proposing, and this is the CEO of ArkeaBio, Colin South, proposing a vaccine that has already been called the Holy Grail in livestock methane mitigation. (9:14 - 9:28) So what they're saying is in order to reduce cow farts, let's put a mask on the cows. That was one idea, but here's another one. Let's vaccinate them and somehow modify cows so that we modify their farts and their burps to have less methane. (9:29 - 9:42) And it goes beyond what we're going to talk about today. It's a whole other project. But folks, when you look at carbon and methane and climate change and temperature and all these things, it's very important to do the math. (9:44 - 10:28) Because that's an element we're not going to dive into much in this, but the impact of methane as compared to the impact of Fukushima leaking radioactive waste into the ocean as we speak is by many experts' opinions on the insignificant scale of things that cause global warming, you know, or that retain heat in the atmosphere, which is mostly clouds and water and a tiny bit of carbon and a tiny bit of that, perhaps methane. But in any event, vaccinating the cows to change their farts with unknown side effects is another idea they threw out there. What about number three? Well, and don't forget that little face, yeah, of a known person on the left lower corner again. (10:28 - 10:47) Yeah, because he pops up in all these amazing plans. And the next one, we already mentioned that at the beginning, that basically playing with genes is a really, really dangerous thing. It's really entering the book of life. (10:48 - 11:09) And we haven't written it and something else or somebody else wrote it. And he had a real plan behind it. And there's no such thing as a simple manipulation, because whatever you mess with one gene, it will affect loads, loads of proteins that this one is being producing. (11:09 - 11:27) So not just one. And so the next idea is to use genetic manipulation, CRISP technique in order to help to reduce methane. And yeah, as you mentioned, Mark, yeah, we'll have to look at the picture of what methane is actually all about. (11:27 - 11:36) Yeah, how much it actually influences our climate. And we'll dive a little bit into that later on. But so that's part three, part four. (11:37 - 12:03) So another suggestion, and here you can see our famous character in the corner there, is to feed the cows seaweed. So there's an Australian startup called Rumen8, and it's found that feeding cows seaweed can suppress an enzyme for methane production. And that's leading to an 80% reduction in methane production of the cow. (12:05 - 12:20) Unfortunately, cows aren't very fond of the flavor of seaweed. Perhaps, again, our bodies tend to know what they need. And they propose they can cover this up with molasses, sort of use some sugar to get it down. (12:22 - 12:42) And other additives that they claim don't alter the taste of the cow's milk. That doesn't sound like a really healthy idea, if I just might mention, Christof, you know, if you get, for instance, do the same with people, say, look, we're going to feed them something that's not natural for them, and they don't like it. But if we put enough sugar with it, they'll swallow it. (12:43 - 13:06) And I think I would like to propose that as cows have a very different digestive tract, that I think if you think sugar can present a danger for humans, I think sugaring the cow's food may be very dangerous. It's a very risky maneuver. Yeah, well, in comparison to all the other suggestions, one and three, yeah, it almost sounds like the most benign version. (13:07 - 13:24) But as you mentioned, we should look at what we're all designed. I mean, there are some places where they actually used to feed seaweed to cows in Brittany and other places. But these cows and their microbiome have been used to this for centuries. (13:25 - 13:51) So this doesn't mean that the cow around the corner will actually be benefiting from this approach. But let's come to the next part, because this is what this presentation is all about. And that's the fifth suggestion, which is to feed the cows a drug or chemical additive that's designed to reduce the emission of methane. (13:51 - 14:23) And the drug they're running with, the active ingredient, is 3-nitrooxypropanol. And once again, our famous little character there, fine Billy, is involved in the background. Is it really amazing that whatever topic on this planet at the moment, this man is an expert in almost all issues that are supposed to solve humanity's problems? I think it's amazing. (14:24 - 14:48) I certainly am more humble. I don't have the expertise in all topics, but this man seems to have it. Well, may I suggest as well, academically, that this character's ongoing persistence like this is evidence of the failure of the judiciary or basic human capacity to maintain security and the rule of law on our planet right now. (14:50 - 15:09) Well, let's come to the next point that you mentioned, Mark. Do we really need to reduce methane in the first place? I mean, whenever you hear about climate problems in the media, CO2 is already a questionable thing. It's 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere. (15:10 - 15:21) But when you look at methane, it's actually even a little bit more bizarre. That livestock contributes 12% of global methane emissions. That sounds like a lot. (15:22 - 15:50) But if you look at the content of methane in the Earth's atmosphere, it's 1.9 parts per million. That's 0.00019% of the Earth's atmosphere. So even if you're no expert when it comes to the climate or when it comes to chemistry, this number should really make you question what this is all about. (15:50 - 16:55) Because if you then look at the 12% of the life of 1.9 parts per million, then you're dealing with a number of 0.0000228%. So make up your own mind if this is really the significant breakthrough that we all need in order to save our planet in the first place. Starting with the potential of this intervention, is it really necessary? Well, you know, I think that we need a healthy level of suspicion, given that clearly this is not the problem. So what is the solution all about to the problem that doesn't really appear to exist and is dwarfed by much more important problems? Like, for instance, the bombs in Palestine right now, the leaking of Fukushima, the ongoing death and disease and cancer as a result of the COVID-19 intervention. (16:58 - 17:12) And it's interesting, you know, you look at the date 2030. So once again, 2030 comes up because 2021's passed and it ain't all done. And we've looked at covenants of mares and other globalist organizations. (17:13 - 17:53) And 2030 also includes reducing meat to zero most places in the world. So if our cow farts aren't really significantly a problem, and there is a mandating of a drug in the cows to fix a problem that, in my opinion, doesn't exist, there are much more important problems. And the same, you see the same, we should have Farih Hassan do a conflicts of interest on this, because as you notice, we see some of the same characters that pop up everywhere in the agendas, like getting rid of meat. (17:54 - 18:29) So why are the same people drugging the cows to solve a methane problem that doesn't exist, and simultaneously have other organizations plotting for us to stop eating meat entirely and switch protein to bugs? Interesting things to keep in mind as we go a little more through the science. And we'll dig a little bit into maybe further agendas that can be caused, what we know from the experiments with animals, with this additive. But yeah, let's see, we'll come to the next step. (18:29 - 19:48) So next, because the real sleeping giants, there is no doubt the climate is changing, but we have to ask ourselves, is that part of a natural cycle that has occurred since millions, millions, millions of years? And where are we? I can only encourage everybody to look at the charts of comparison, not just the last 100 years, but comparing the climate in the last few million years, in order to know where we stand at the moment. But if we consider that it could get a little bit warmer, well, there are two sleeping giants when it comes to methane, that's once the Arctic permafrost, that at the moment isn't playing the number one rule, but could very, very quickly, exponentially explode, being far, far more productive when it comes to methane than all cows on this planet. And the next thing is the world's oceans, because they release about 10 to 12 million tons of methane per year at the moment, which is still lower than the 120 million tons through cows, but this could also, with slight climate changes, explode and be far, far more, more concerning than the rest of it. (19:48 - 20:30) And well, there's actually one thing that nobody here is even talking about, and that's if you look at the drillings of oil that have been done in the sea, these sometimes are left open and continuously release huge, huge amounts of methane. This is something that needs to be looked at as well. But all things considered, yeah, are we dealing really with the number one methane scare that we have on this planet? So, next slide. (20:31 - 20:52) And I wonder if we could just mention as well, you know, about methane. So, you know, methane is one carbon with four hydrogens. It's the simplest of all the hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons including, you know, propane, different elements of gasoline, diesel, and of the hydrocarbons, the absolute cleanest, most efficient hydrocarbon is methane. (20:53 - 21:08) Because with methane, you have four hydrogens per carbon. It's the highest ratio you can get in a hydrocarbon, which means you get the maximum conversion to water when you burn it with the minimum amount of carbon dioxide. Still a clean gas that helps your plants grow. (21:09 - 21:39) And so methane is, there are some places which are brilliant, where actually they gather the septic or the human excrement. And before they create phenomenal quality compost out of the remaining parts that are properly digested and one of the best compost you can use to restore the soil and to restore the cycle of life between us eating and our soil, you can also produce methane gas off those. And it can be used as a fuel, cooking, heating, things like that. (21:39 - 21:48) So, you know, methane is not some terribly scary thing. And it's a bit of a comical note. And I don't know if you do this in Europe, Christophe, but we do some silly things in Canada. (21:48 - 21:58) Not me personally, of course. But in Canada, there's a funny thing kids do sometimes called a blue angel. And that's where they hold a lighter below their pants when they fart. (21:58 - 22:10) And you see a little tiny blue flame. If their methane is a little on the, you know, if they're, if they're a good methane producer, they can produce a great blue angel. So I wasn't aware of that. (22:10 - 22:20) I wasn't aware of that term. It's, but I experienced this phenomena with a hundred percent boys. Yeah. (22:20 - 22:32) Being gender correct here. Girls usually are quite amazed about this strange. Oh man. (22:32 - 22:40) Strange hobby of boys. Anyway, so then we come to the next, the next one. What is it all about? Yeah. (22:41 - 22:49) It's that methane production of cows can be cut by 40%. Yep. So that's, that's dying. (22:49 - 22:59) Think about this folks. I gotta just, I gotta just get the numbers in front of me. What was, what was the, the percentage that cows get credit for of greenhouse gas? Oh yeah. (23:00 - 23:26) So 0.0000228% of the greenhouse gas comes from cows. Now across Europe, they're mandating that all the cows will take this drug with unknown effects on their microbiome and the people that eat them with a warning label for health of humans. But it will reduce that very tiny number by less than half. (23:26 - 23:35) So in theory, if it works, like a lot of things don't when these guys do it. Yeah. No, I don't think I'm going to rush out and buy it voluntarily. (23:36 - 23:46) Do you, are you going to try to get some for your sheep and a cow there? Of course. Of course. My, my donkey, my donkeys, my sheep, and my cows are longing for this intervention. (23:48 - 24:03) Well, I'll bring you some, I'll bring you some cricket recipes in case things don't go well. Well, yeah, next, next slide. If, if we look at this, this is an interesting one. (24:03 - 24:24) Yeah. Because the FDA, so in the United States Food and Drug Administration lists three NOP as not for human use and their website, especially noting reproductive harms for males. Well, let's take that. (24:25 - 24:56) Christof, I mean, I'm going to, we're going to make sure that the Iron Wire Daily puts a link to the special you and I did looking at the autopsies of Arne Burkhardt on a previous mandate's effect on the reproductive harms for males. Um, it doesn't seem like the people in the drug and food and ag industry are desperately trying to protect the male reproduction among humans. Gentlemen, uh, I think you should be motivated to continue learning and advancing with us on this one. (24:57 - 25:13) Well, yeah, thanks for picking that up, Mark. Because if you look at the decline of sperm since the 1950s, yeah, this is, uh, more than dramatic. And if you look at the fertility going down, we're talking about a major crisis. (25:14 - 25:40) Well, for some, it's maybe not a crisis. And if we look at the latest study, I don't know if you saw that, um, uh, I just wrote a sub stack about, about it, um, uh, yesterday about the latest study when they looked at rats, yeah, that were given the equivalent of the human dose of the mRNA COVID shots. And the female eggs, uh, were destroyed by 60%, 60%. (25:41 - 26:12) So there we're, we're looking at all these interventions, um, that are mandated to animals and to humans, clearly, clearly pointing at not only a risk to, uh, further diminish fertility, but, um, actually doing so. So, uh, next one. So, uh, there's been a pilot in Belgium, uh, to further reduce methane emissions. (26:12 - 26:27) And this was between 2018 and 2020 when the company Danone carried out a large research project on the effects of Bovaer at a dairy farm. So this is already going on before, well, just before 2020. Exactly. (26:27 - 26:37) And, uh, yeah. And, uh, uh, some people are only hearing about this topic. And in fact, whenever I talk to people here, nobody has actually heard about that topic. (26:37 - 26:59) I know in the UK it's, uh, uh, publicly discussed at the moment, but isn't that interesting in itself? Yeah. That it's not, uh, what are the, um, headings of our papers that should inform us about a new intervention? Um, yeah, that's going to save the climate and going to save us. So, uh, strangely nobody's talking about it. (26:59 - 27:05) Yeah. So, um, yeah, if we're looking at the bovar use, um, next slide. Yep. (27:07 - 28:00) You can see that, uh, Aller foods, uh, that's a Danish company, um, are adapting, uh, the producer's company's Bovaer, uh, uh, and that, uh, you have other, uh, brands like Lurpeg, Anchor, or Appentide that work with Aldi, Aslan, Marsons. Some people might know, uh, these brands, Tesco's and Muller's, uh, and Lidl that, um, are actually already using it. And Ola is working even with the fast food industry with McDonald's, uh, and, uh, so it's existed by Burger Salmon and HBSC and the Sainsbury's and Waitrose, uh, uh, that previously in 2023 dropped Ola, but unfortunately praised it with Muller, uh, that works again with Ola. (28:00 - 28:16) So again, you have a sign that this is being produced, um, and used in their products and Ola along with Nestle are donating milk to food banks, ensuring the poor also get access to it. So yeah, good, good one. Yeah. (28:16 - 28:36) So, uh, there's always... I noticed, uh, I noticed McDonald's gets in there, Ola is also working with McDonald's. Now that's somebody I've really learned to trust with childhood nutrition, especially after watching the movie Super Size Me. And you can see what 30 days of a McDonald base only diet can do for a human being. (28:37 - 28:42) That was impressive, wasn't it? Yeah. I think it was five days where he had to quit the experiment. Yeah. (28:42 - 28:50) Well, where, where doctors told him to quit the experiment. But anyway, yeah. Yeah, over failure, depression, uh, quite a bit of stuff happened to that fella. (28:51 - 29:14) Absolutely. So, uh, next ones. Uh, but, so how do we get something on the market? Um, that people are, when you hear about it, are not actually that fond of, whether basically it's an intervention to team to change, uh, mankind's genome or, uh, the microbiome of animals, you pay people for doing it. (29:14 - 29:35) And then you certainly always find people that are going to cooperate. Well, now I'm just kind of wondering who's, who's paying for this. Cause what I've noticed in the past, for instance, when they recently mass poisoned the population and drug companies and investors like Bill Gates made a fortune forcing everyone to do it. (29:36 - 30:01) Um, I think it was all the people in the world that paid, I think they, they taxed them and used that money to pay it. I think that's what's happening also right now we're involved. Luckily it's being held up in some places in the U S now the rabbit about it in Canada still, uh, killing massive flocks of chickens, trying to kill a massive herd of ostriches that hold secrets to high immunity who are totally healthy to look at them. (30:02 - 30:25) Um, so there's, there's a, a targeting and a killing of livestock, uh, in many places in the name of H5N1. And we've talked about this before, Christof, and I've published about this as well, folks. There's actually, we both have, there's no, no justification to think that you solve H5N1 in colds by wiping out flocks. (30:25 - 30:33) It makes zero sense. We won't go into all that now, but the materials there, but again, it's the taxpayers paying. So when I hear that, Oh, they're good. (30:33 - 30:37) The farmers are going to be paid. Yeah. They're going to be paid by the consumers who are wondering why the beef doesn't taste right. (30:37 - 30:51) And their testicles are shrinking. Perhaps, perhaps I think we should consider the possibility. I mean, I really, um, uh, thinking about, uh, that mass murder of the animals, just take it to a human level. (30:51 - 31:01) Just imagine in your village, there's an outbreak of something and yeah, the entire village is being ordered to be killed. Then it wouldn't make much sense to us. Yeah. (31:01 - 31:16) And it doesn't make much sense to do that with animals either. So anyway, yeah, that's just a shift of perspective. But when you were talking about who's actually paying for it, well, uh, the payments come from, um, uh, something very interesting in itself. (31:16 - 31:23) The carbon marketplace like Atheon, um, yeah. Pays 50% to them. So, well, there you go. (31:23 - 31:30) And the other 50% is actually coming from government incentives. Yeah. So the government pays for this. (31:30 - 31:45) Yeah. So yeah, and by that, that means we pay for it. Everybody who pays taxes instead of fixing the roads, or instead of giving you a break on your taxes or reducing the price of electricity or letting you heat your home in Europe. (31:45 - 31:57) No, we're going to take your money and force the farmers to put this drug in the cows that you get to eat for now. Although we got some goals for 2030 and it doesn't involve main cheeseburgers for you. No. (31:58 - 32:26) And, uh, next, if you, uh, look at, um, some conspiracy here, uh, because, um, have you heard about misinformation? Yeah. The producer claims that it's basically misinformation to say that this drug harms. Um, uh, and by the way, we're not saying that it harms, we're just quoting what the FDA and yeah, what the product cheats and, uh, yeah, the, the science says about it. (32:26 - 32:37) It's not us who are saying anything like it. Um, so we're not spreading misinformation. We just spreading information that is clearly written out in order to inform the public. (32:37 - 33:02) Um, as so, but they call it misinformation to say that this drug harms and they call it misinformation that they received financing from Bill Gates. The only very strange thing is if you go on the company's websites, DSM, family, uh, AG, uh, well, there is the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation mentioned as a sponsor. So, uh, why is this misinformation? Yeah. (33:02 - 33:17) Um, if the same, uh, face that we can see here, usually on the left, lower bottom appears on the right, uh, right one. So, uh, make up your own mind. You can click on the website and check it for yourself and then decide whether that's misinformation or not. (33:17 - 33:35) Yep. So next. Well, I think misinformation got married though, and she's now Mrs. Information and, uh, she's going to be one of our new, our new experts on the panel and Mrs. Information will share information and they'll probably still call it misinformation, not realizing that you got married to the truth. (33:36 - 34:09) So, Christof, there are also some unprecedented levels of censorship going on with regards to Bovaer and, uh, FEEDOP, which is also known as the panel on additives and products or substances used in animal feed. Um, they falsely based their claim for safety on a paper where nearly 50% of the citations have been censored and therefore conveniently are unverifiable. And so it is evident that the claim of safety is, is a scam, especially in light of the evidence of harms that we're going to discuss. (34:12 - 34:31) Okay. Yeah. And, uh, if you look at the next, um, point here, uh, that's an interesting one that we talked about, um, before, um, at the session here, um, that Bovaer is marketed in Europe as a feed additive, but in America, the FDA classifies it as a drug. (34:32 - 35:06) So you can imagine it's much easier to bring something as a food additive, a feed additive on the market than a drug. There are lots, uh, less of regulatory, uh, hurdles that you have to pass, but, um, yeah, maybe the reason why it's much, much bigger here in Europe than it is in the US at the moment. So how does Bovaer actually work? Well, uh, the action, um, that inhibits, uh, uh, methyl coenzyme M reductase, an enzyme critical for methane production. (35:07 - 35:19) And again, on average, it's about a 40% reduction. It reduces methane in 30% in dairy cows and 45% in beef cattles. And it acts quite quickly. (35:19 - 35:33) Next one. That's, that's quite interesting. It's 30 minutes of ingestion and you've already impacted the microbiome of the cattle's gut so that it dramatically changed the biochemistry. (35:34 - 35:40) Interesting. Concerning. So this is, uh, this is an interesting thing. (35:40 - 35:56) When you look at its GHS classification and you can see there's a variety of warning labels, flammable, corrosive and irritant. I wouldn't want to ingest an irritant much and a health hazard. And, you know, there's warning and danger written all over this. (35:56 - 36:17) And especially if you look at the last item there, uh, suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child warning reproductive toxicity. So, Christof, let's have a look here at the GHS classification. And you can see that there's, you can see the three pictures. (36:17 - 36:29) It's flammable, it's corrosive, it's irritant, and it's a health hazard. Now let's look into the health hazard side of this. You know, you can see multiple danger warnings associated with this drug. (36:30 - 36:43) Um, from eye irritation, eye damage, skin is, harmful if swallowed. Feed additive, harmful if swallowed, um, respiratory issues. But then look at the last one suspect. (36:43 - 37:06) And this is suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child warning reproductive toxicity. You know, when you, when you see that and they want to label it safe and effective vaccine, I mean, they want to label it feed additive rather than a microbiome modifying drug. It's very concerning. (37:08 - 37:10) Indeed, Mark. Indeed. Yeah. (37:10 - 37:32) And next, yeah, if we look at the safety concerns, uh, uh, carcinogenicity and genotoxicity. So causing cancer and being, uh, harmful to our genes, uh, something that hasn't been done with the human intervention with the gene therapy, by the way, yep. In order to get the approval studies out. (37:32 - 37:59) But in rat studies, uh, here they did it here. They looked at animals, what happens to them if you give them this feed and high doses were linked to benign tumors and potential for long-term carcinogenic effect. But we'll come back to that, um, uh, later is because in next slide, if you look at one study, uh, it just created tumors in only 8% of female rats. (38:00 - 38:15) Yep. And so you've got a, uh, you've got a, um, uh, 92% chance of being fine. Um, so experts said, uh, that this, uh, wasn't statistically significant. (38:15 - 38:23) So it's only one in 10. Yeah. So, uh, nevermind 10%, uh, uh, um, uh, rate of cancer. (38:23 - 38:43) And we know that with most substances tested and we know Mark, uh, that for a cancer to develop, it usually takes a long time. And one of the trick of the trades was in animal studies that they've used for many, many products out there, just have an observation time of maybe three months. So you sacrifice the animals. (38:43 - 39:10) I don't know about this study, how long they actually observed them, but that's a trick of the trade. If you just look at a shorter time, you will come up with much, much, uh, shorter outcome, um, uh, uh, results. And, uh, in that's why a drug or a genetic injection usually needs about 10 years to be observed because you also need to look in animals, uh, what happens to the next generation. (39:10 - 39:22) And especially when it comes to gene damage or cancer, you won't get the impression of that in observing it only for a few weeks or a few months. Yeah. That's, that's a really important point, Christof. (39:23 - 39:27) I was speaking with someone a while ago and he said, I've been smoking for 10 years. I'm fine. Smoking doesn't hurt anybody. (39:27 - 39:39) I'm like, it's still early in the game. You're, you know, like, and, and long-term studies are important. And, you know, I would think let, I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. (39:39 - 40:11) Let's, let's imagine that there was a real methane problem and that cows really contributed significantly to the actual environmental problems in the world. I don't think they do, but let's just, let's just give them that for a moment and say, what if that was the issue? So I think what one would do would probably keep one herd of cattle on an island somewhere and run the experiment for a decade or two before you decide to gamble the entire human livestock population on the planet. Right. (40:11 - 40:16) Especially we've, we've just done the experiment with the humans. It didn't work out very well. It didn't help anything. (40:17 - 40:26) Certainly didn't reduce COVID risk. So I think our level of healthy suspicion is a good thing. Absolutely. (40:26 - 40:37) But if you look at more studies of a safety concern, we mentioned it at the beginning. Yeah. Just look at here, the reproductive toxicity. (40:38 - 40:54) Yeah. Something that's even mentioned on the label itself, as it's classified as we just saw by the GSS category two for reproductive toxicity. And in rat studies, it showed reduced testicular weight, sperm count and motility. (40:55 - 41:02) So not only that. I wonder, I wonder what its effect would be on calves. Right. (41:02 - 41:11) I don't know if any of you are cow farmers. I have friends who are cow farmers. And I'll tell you when, when one of their, one of their cows give birth, they celebrate. (41:13 - 41:25) Cause that's a real special thing. And so we're, we're talking mammals here. We're talking the humans that eat the cows, the rats that were in the experiment and the cows, they want to do the mouse experiment on, on way to the humans. (41:27 - 41:34) Reproduction is important. And the ability of cattle to reproduce. I mean, what a pressure point to take out the human food supply. (41:34 - 41:53) This could be. I mean, they're the first reports. They're unconfirmed of Danish farmers having seen problems in the cows that have been fed over, but we'll, we'll have to follow that up. (41:53 - 42:13) It's not confirmed, as I said, but we look at this data that we already have. Concerning the next generation and yeah, it causes harm to sperm in rats and beagles. That was the next, next slide. (42:13 - 42:34) So, and even going further, the next one, the study that there's another study that goes on to explicitly state that sperm motility and sperm counts were decreased in all males of this groups. You can see the references on the, on the right side. And next one, that it has an impact on cattle health. (42:35 - 42:51) Yeah. Because what it does, as we just said, the microbiome is something very, very special and very delicate, but we know that the alters ruin microbial balance and potentially affecting digestion, nutrient absorption. And now listen to this. (42:51 - 43:01) It has physical effects, reduced feed intake, small ovaries. So there again, it's not only the male ones that are affected. And lower heart weight in cows. (43:01 - 43:16) Yeah. Well, who, who needs cardiovascular health in cows, I say, and the long-term risk unknown effects on cattle health and productivity sets. So we're just wondering what kind of long-term observational studies have been done with them. (43:20 - 43:45) And it's, it's shocking, shocking that this has been rolled out across a continent by mandate. It wouldn't, it wouldn't be as shocking if we hadn't been softened at this level of abuse of science through the last five years. And, you know, whenever we're being offered solutions, yeah. (43:45 - 44:11) Do they, we just talked about it. Do they actually match the problem? And if that's one thing that we should have learned by now, that it's only by cooperation with nature that humanity will advance. And not imposing some invention of humankind that will isolate us even further because we've isolated ourselves a lot from nature, but we'll come to the solutions. (44:12 - 44:55) If you would take this, this problem as, as serious as some people do, there are solutions, but they're definitely not in supporting, um, uh, agricultural business by endangering the environment, the animals and us humans. And, and next one, sorry. And, you know, it speaks a lot to the money, Christophe, you know, because when you, when you solve a problem with a nutrient or with something natural, I mean, I mean, you're aware, I mean, some of the amazing things that could be done, for instance, the use of mycelium to, to do everything from detoxify toxic sludge, restore soil, help trees communicate and prosper, et cetera. (44:56 - 45:05) Um, and, and, and what are you using? You're using stuff from nature, but the, the, and that's a beautiful thing. It's free. It's there for us. (45:05 - 45:29) It's a gift of being on this earth to take advantage and learn and study and use natural things that belong in life. Um, but there's no patent on it. And you see, this is a different model, which is you have, you patent a drug and then it used to be, you'd have to get people to want it, you know, by a variety of means, maybe on occasion, it's a really great drug for whatever condition. (45:30 - 45:38) But in this case, you, you mandate the drug. You force, you say, listen, you're going to get it. Either it's an injection in you and your kids, or it's going to go into the cattle. (45:39 - 45:47) If you're going to have any cattle, they're going to get this and you're going to pay for it. Um, and it's patented. So, I mean, the profits are massive. (45:47 - 46:00) It allows real centralization of power and wealth. Whereas when people can go out and use the plants and use the soil and use the sun and use their head and communicate with each other and live as an enlightened species, that's where we're going. That's the better way. (46:01 - 46:08) Absolutely. This is, this is the dinosaur monkey we're still trying to get off our back as a species. And this is just another example of it. (46:08 - 46:11) Yeah. And as you said, there is a better way. Yeah. (46:12 - 46:34) And, and if, if we look at the now, something that of course should concern as, as humans, I don't take humanity that seriously and not that important. Yeah. If you look at all the rest of, of life forms out there, but the most, some, some humans do. (46:34 - 47:06) And so the impacts on humans, if we want to look at it, well, there's no study done on it. But if you just go and just research a little bit in the internet, well, guess what? We too have, as you just said about that hobby of the Canadian boys, Mark, yeah, we too produce methane out of our gut. And this methanobrevibacter is one of the most abundant methanogens in the human gut. (47:06 - 47:12) Yeah. That's one type of bacteria. And they contribute to the breakdowns of indigestible starch. (47:12 - 47:20) So they do have a function. Guess what? Yeah. All those bacteria that were fighting in those poor cows, they too have a function. (47:20 - 47:45) They break down indigestible starch. And by interacting with bacterial ferments, optimizing energy harvest from food, and by inhibiting the methane production enzyme, Bovaer can significantly reduce or block methane production by methanobrevibacter. That's just a little internet request I made in order to look out for it. (47:46 - 48:33) So the safety and efficiency of the Bovaer in humans would require clinical testing because, well, if you recently ate something made out of dairy products, you ate a yogurt, you drank a cup of milk, and afterwards you had some digestion, 30 minutes it takes, we just heard. Well, maybe you should think about that it's not only an intolerance towards dairy that's the problem, but it could already be the first sign that your intestines are being disturbed by a toxic substance because we now will hear about another side effect of it. If you reduce methane, you actually increase the production of another gas. (48:33 - 48:45) So bloating could be a sign that, yeah, you're already affected by it. Next. So when we think about the human health risks, we've got some issues. (48:45 - 48:55) Lack of long-term studies. There's been no comprehensive research on human exposure via milk or meat. So, well, we don't know what happens when you eat the cows, but anyways, we're going to do it to the cows. (48:56 - 49:18) Uh, the potential for harmful metabolites. So we have to remember whenever you put a chemical into a system, as the body or the bacteria or whatever deals with it, breaks it down, you end up with different compounds. And, uh, again, no, no safety verification, adequate testing of that. (49:19 - 50:04) And then we noticed the children being at higher risk because they're immature systems for detoxifying foreign substances, uh, put them at higher vulnerability to chemicals like this. So, uh, uh, next, if we go to the environment, the environmental trade-offs that will, uh, we have to look at, uh, we just mentioned, if you get rid of one gas, the methane, you actually increase the production of another one and that's hydrogen. So increased hydrogen level in the rumen, uh, can actually influence, uh, the nutrient cycle. (50:04 - 50:34) And, uh, we'll hear soon about what that means and unattended ecological consequences can also result from that because long-term environmental impacts of widespread use are absolutely unknown. Yeah. So, um, uh, next you can see, uh, more infos on adverse effects on Cephalon humans with, uh, lists of organizations that have, uh, um, looked at this problem. (50:34 - 50:50) Feel free to check out these publications. And in terms of the hydrogen that's being produced more, look at this study. So you get rid of the methane, but you increase hydrogen by 227%. (50:51 - 51:23) So no wonder your cow will look, uh, almost pregnant after, uh, after eating this, because that's a lot of hydrogen being produced, um, uh, in the rumen of your poor cow. And, and, and these links and other, uh, information that pops up along the way during our conversation, there'll be available on the Iron Wire Daily where you'll find this original video. And then next. (51:23 - 51:36) Yeah. So again, the panel that you just looked up, uh, Mark, uh, the, uh, feed app panel could not conclude on the safety on data for other animals, species categories. Yeah. (51:36 - 51:54) So the impacts, um, and this is quite a regular thing, by the way, with most, um, drugs, um, uh, vaccines for that matter for animals or food additives. Um, they just pick up, that's the way our science work. Yeah. (51:54 - 52:08) We are, we're reductionist, um, uh, approach in science, which never made sense. We just pick up one thing, observe what's going to happen when you inject or, um, uh, feed the cell with. And then we say, oh, wonderful. (52:08 - 52:17) Look at this, um, uh, effect and the rest of it and all the other causes that are associated with it. We call side effects. Well, they're not side effects. (52:17 - 52:25) They're straight effects. If you would look at them, it just depends on the end point of the study. I refuse the term side effects. (52:26 - 52:33) So, but apart from, uh, um, all the rest that we talked about, there are some ethical concerns. Yeah. Next. (52:34 - 52:55) And, you know, as, as well on that point, Christof, you know, let's, let's, let's apply this to, like we said earlier, healthy farming habits, you know, open pasture cattle, for instance, open pasture cattle, they're eating grass, they're defecating, they're dropping nitrogen, they're enriching the soil. It's done properly. It's really smart way to rotate the use of the land. (52:56 - 53:38) Um, but you have everything from insects to bacteria, to mycelium, to small birds, to small rodents, frogs. I mean, a lot of things live in a field and when you have the entire herd eating this drug and pooping the drug and or its metabolites, well, what's the impact on all of that? And what's the impact of all of that on the real environment on real issues? It's unknown. So that brings us, as you said, to ethical concerns. (53:39 - 54:04) Yeah. I mean, if you, if, if you look at all the animals, all the insects that actually feed of what comes out of the rare end of the cow, yeah, it's an entire ecosystem. So if this, uh, uh, drug is in there and kills the microbiome of any animal that actually feeds, um, itself, um, of this ecosystem, it's unpredictable what's going to happen. (54:05 - 54:24) Yeah. So, uh, it's, uh, anyway, yeah. Uh, yeah, uh, it's, it's, I don't even sometimes know what to say because I think it's just such hybris of humanity to interfere, uh, with nature, the way we're doing that. (54:24 - 54:35) Um, it's, uh, it is really insane. So yeah. What about the ethical concerns next? So, well, a few things stand out. (54:35 - 54:49) There's, there's clearly a lack of transparency. As we said, 50% of the studies used to justify parts of the story are unverifiable for instance. Um, and then the other big issue as well, one of the other big issues is the pressure on the farmers. (54:50 - 55:12) And it's quite perverse if you think about it, you know, whether they, whether they fund this by taking money from the taxpayers to pay the farmer or whether they make the farmers have to come up with the money to do it. Part of what everybody gets on the other end, like for the farmer's perspective, okay, my, my cattle are going to not eat as well. They're not going to gain as much weight. (55:12 - 55:22) I'm going to get a lower yield of meat when I sell them, right? It's going to interfere. They're going to have reduced fertility. I'm going to have less calves born. (55:23 - 55:41) Uh, there could be birth defects in the cows. I don't know. And, and, and long-term survival, the ability to continue to reproduce all this gambled for something that I don't know about you, but I don't know any sane farmers who are running around going, I've got to come up with something to do about that little bit of methane in the cow's ferds. (55:42 - 56:23) It's a brutal abuse of farmers as well as the public. Well, I mean, if, if you look at the marketing that's, um, uh, nowadays done by, um, uh, the pharmaceutical complex, uh, if you want to call it, uh, that way, uh, whether it's on TV or it's marketing, uh, things for individual doctors or the farmers, they're professional that will present the most amazing slides to make you convinced that this, uh, is something you have to have. And of course, uh, it's all about money, but as you just mentioned, it will be for the big, big ones. (56:23 - 56:46) Yeah. That can actually profit from it because the normal small farmer, uh, who's under attack, um, from all sides and, uh, is being forced to leave in Ireland, in Holland and so many other countries, um, uh, their farms that have been probably in ownership of their family for generations. Yeah. (56:46 - 57:12) And, uh, one thing we know, it's not a good idea to leave our food to, uh, the, uh, industrial complex because they want to take over our food. Yeah. If, in case you're not aware, uh, they're having a big fight against all farmers in order to get their food that come out of the lab, that come out of the 3D printer, et cetera, et cetera, on your table. (57:12 - 57:18) And, uh, this is no conspiracy. This is just the truth. There are already restaurants offering all of this. (57:18 - 57:42) And if you go to some supermarkets, they'll already offer you the alternatives to dairy, to meat, et cetera, fresh from a lab. And that's an entire topic in itself that we could highlight on another day. If there's interest, um, uh, that you get information about it, please post a message and, um, then we'll put something together because it's an important topic as well. (57:42 - 58:08) But as we say, uh, um, money is a factor next, but is it just about money? Uh, well, it's about corporate interest and profit motives. If you look at the productive, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, the, the, the companies that produce Bovaer, it's DSMS, Firmish, and, uh, Illineo, uh, that's Bover is marketed as a billion dollar blockbuster. Yeah. (58:08 - 58:26) So, um, whatever it comes to medicine and money, whenever it comes to saving climate and money, uh, my alarm bells go, uh, go up as well. And of course, it's all about carbon credit schemes. So far we're incented to adopt Bovaer for carbon credits, reinforce corporate control. (58:26 - 58:41) And that's another topic in itself, in case you think it's a conspiracy, um, uh, what's being done to our climate, uh, by selling carbon credit schemes. Uh, that's the topic of itself. Uh, so, uh, yeah. (58:41 - 59:03) Um, you mentioned already, uh, uh, with an alternative, uh, uh, Mark, well, uh, next there are alternatives to Bovaer. Yeah. So, you know, as we were talking about regenerative farming, which done properly can regenerate soil health, capture carbon, enhance biodiversity. (59:04 - 59:37) Um, and then as we mentioned earlier, if we, if we really were concerned about tweaking cattle's digestion in a quest to reduce the methane in the farts and burps, again, debated, debatable. But as we mentioned earlier, the best of the things they had put forward with seaweed was using food that reduced methane. And then of course, probiotics, which is an interesting concept, which is, well, rather than, rather than just drugging microbiome, feeding the microbiome, enhancing the microbiome that way. (59:37 - 59:57) Again, I'd be very cautious of this because you'd probably get into genetically modified things being put out there. Uh, there's some promise for essential oils showing promise in reducing methane production as well. And then I think overall, I mean, a holistic approach, working with the whole thing, working with nature, not working against it. (59:57 - 1:00:18) That's, that's the way to go. And, um, and you know, when you, when you visit like a permaculture farm or you visit someone doing regenerative farming and you see how it's really done. And then you consider that, for instance, the characters whose heads keeps popping up of evidence of the lack of judiciary function in humans right now. (1:00:20 - 1:00:37) That person is now the biggest owner of farmland in the United States. And so he'd be one of the few farmers that actually gets the money on both ends because he's on the profit end of it. And there's something so attractive. (1:00:37 - 1:00:57) And it's the same thing with the vaccine industry is if, if you can use government to force people to buy a product and you want a patent on it, you just got yourself a cash cow. I think that's the real attraction here. Just like with COVID, everybody wanted to jump on the vaccine bandwagon and then have billions of dollars to do it because they were forcing it on people. (1:00:58 - 1:01:07) It was an easy market. This is the same idea of forcing Bovaer on people. Unfortunately, very, very true. (1:01:08 - 1:01:58) And so what, what can you do next? And, uh, well, uh, the more people are hearing about this information and we hopefully can contribute to informing, um, you people out there about it in case you haven't heard of the topic, um, then, um, well, the first thing is getting informed, um, get consumers distrust because that's what you should have yet. And, uh, uh, there are social media campaigns and boycotts against, uh, Bovaer fed, uh, produce, uh, especially in the UK. So, uh, why don't you get on the net and look, uh, which organization are in your country, uh, wherever you're watching this. (1:01:58 - 1:02:11) And, uh, well, major retailers like Tesco and all in, uh, England face criticism for adopting Bovaer. Um, yeah, well tell your supermarket that you don't want it. Yeah. (1:02:11 - 1:02:36) It's up to us. We basically control, uh, through our purchase, uh, what's, uh, actually a good idea and not so, but you have to be informed, uh, in order to take a conscious decision, um, of what you're going to feed your children. And, uh, with everything you've heard today, please take your time to investigate it. (1:02:36 - 1:02:59) Make up your own mind. Don't just believe, uh, what, uh, was on these slides today, uh, just inform yourself and ask yourself, is this what I want to basically, uh, in, uh, get into the microbiome of my child? Uh, and then you think about yourself. So what can you do, uh, next? Yeah. (1:02:59 - 1:03:18) And, you know, one thing I'd love to just add in there, Christoph, we've seen, we've seen the extinction of multiple species recently. Including, you know, one whole major type of the rhino or rhinoceros. Um, and, and we're looking, I mean, this isn't an isolated subject. (1:03:18 - 1:03:33) This Bovair is not an isolated subject. This mandating the drugging of cattle across Europe is not an isolated subject. Uh, H5N1, the calling of chickens, the PCR swabbing, the, the ongoing battle to destroy the ostriches in British Columbia. (1:03:33 - 1:03:51) These are not isolated incidents. And I think that it's very important because we're talking about life. Life is a really special thing and we should be, do things in a safe fashion. (1:03:51 - 1:04:26) We should, you don't want to be reckless with things like life on earth. And we can see that these industries, these fascist conglomerations of corporations and hijacked governments are playing real fast and loose with life on earth. And I think it's very important, just like some of managing to keep some human children safe, to make sure there's some human children, hopefully that aren't genetically modified, sterilized, and mentally deranged from gender bending and all this other nonsense. (1:04:27 - 1:05:10) I think it's important we keep some natural chickens and cows. And you're seeing more and more, I've, I've been in multiple countries talking with farmers on this issue and you're seeing more and more long arm of hijacked government wanting to have their finger on everything, wanting to control everything, wanting all the cows to have chips on their ears. And I think for the survival of not only humans, but cattle as well, I sure hope there's some out there keeping some natural cattle off the grid, away from the long arm of the food slash government slash fascist conglomerate, which brings us to our summary. (1:05:11 - 1:05:23) So yeah, we're not helpless. There's a lot we can do. These words that you've heard tonight are just to empower you. (1:05:24 - 1:05:31) So look at what you can do. You can form yourself. Get the information out. (1:05:31 - 1:05:58) It's nothing that isn't on the bookshelf around the corner. Write to your local supermarket companies that you don't want it. If you made up your mind that this is not suitable for, or not adequately tested in order to be on your table, in your pizza, in your yogurt, or in the milk with your breakfast cereals. (1:05:59 - 1:06:35) And well, why don't you test, if you have some bloating in your intestines, there are many reasons for it, but why don't you test methanobradylbacter to see whether you still have it? Because if this other invention is effective and you're eating it on a regular basis, you see all the retailers that are already using it, the likelihood that when going out for a meal or buying certain products that you've already ingested this is very, very high. And talk to your family. Talk to your friends. (1:06:35 - 1:07:05) Ask them to watch this and make up their own minds. Then you don't have to just digest everything that's being offered to you. Next, what's the summary of this, Martin? Well, regenerative farming practices, they've proven that cattle farming is more extensive and less intensive manner, is the best practice for soil, health, and cattle welfare. (1:07:05 - 1:07:40) It's carbon neutral. So that we're talking about, like we say, open pasture cattle, the beautiful scene that humans have adored for centuries. And we should be promoting products and legislation that encourages regenerative farming rather than authorizing and pushing unnecessary products and practices that decrease the welfare of the animals, the people, and discourage regenerative farming, but rather push towards this factory farming, this intensification, chemical-based patent drug farming and production of some form of products for people to eat. (1:07:42 - 1:08:26) Yeah. And next, if you look at the effect of all the problems, whether it's infections to our animals, whether that's the so-called methane problem, whatever, most of that we're talking is stressed animals with inadequate food, inadequate living conditions, that we then blame for outbreaks of pathogens that could even threaten ourselves. But if you look behind it, basically, it's the same companies that are offering us all the advantages of making this intervention with these poor animals. (1:08:27 - 1:08:39) They're the ones that created it. So if you look at the net effect, it's industrial feedlots, it's methane and deforestation. It's not good for our climate. (1:08:39 - 1:08:55) It's not good for life. Yeah. But if you look at regenerative grazing and methane offset by sole carbon storage, neutral or even negative, yeah, let nature control the situation and you will have a completely different effect. (1:08:55 - 1:09:05) And next, we talked about the regenerative farming. It's not just an alternative. It's a necessary evolution of agriculture. (1:09:06 - 1:09:29) It's nothing old fashioned and being stuck in the past. It is the future because that's the only future we can secure healthy food for our planet. And instead of doubling down on failed intensive care, intensive models, intensive farming practices, we should empower farmers to work with nature and not against. (1:09:31 - 1:09:41) And if we look next, if we look at the key benefits of regenerative cattle farming, it's healthy for the soil. It's carbon neutral or even negative. It's good for the animal welfare. (1:09:42 - 1:10:31) It's resilience to weather change. And if I drive with my kids around our area and look at all the monocultures and look at basically some green out there for only a short period of time during the year and the extinction of all life forms, of small mammals, of insects and everything, and you can literally move a few steps, go into the next wood and feel a wonderful cool climate whilst you're talking about an overheating when you go out to a normal field, which basically has nothing but a chemically poisoned soil for a monoculture. Well, look at where the problem actually is in measuring a hotter Earth surface. (1:10:31 - 1:11:09) If you accumulate all these hectares on this planet that we sacrificed and did regenerate and integrate into nature, but basically made them like concrete fields with some plants that most of them are genetically modified. The more you dig into this, the more insane the system actually gets, Mark, isn't it? Well, it's really true. And I think it's really important something when we think about regenerative farming. (1:11:09 - 1:11:20) It's sometimes important to really step back and look at the basic science. I know I hinted at this at the beginning, but we live in an amazing solar-powered life. We are solar-powered creatures. (1:11:22 - 1:11:49) And there's a lot of details to microbes and everything going in the soil, but there's a big aspect here where the sun powers the plants and the plants synthesize complex molecules. And we eat those complex molecules. And in the process of digesting them, we produce actually what used properly is the perfect fertilizer to live in a cycle where the sun keeps powering the molecules up through the plants. (1:11:49 - 1:12:00) And we use those going down through our body and the same for the cattle. This is an amazing thing. And with this industrial farming, what you're doing is breaking all of those circles. (1:12:02 - 1:12:28) And in the end, doing things that are very unnatural, very unsustainability, and leave a toxic waste in sick people and sick animals in their week. Indeed, indeed. And next, if we look at why current policies often fail regenerative farming, well, it's quite obvious, yeah? Subsidies aren't supporting this way of doing farming. (1:12:28 - 1:12:53) It's misleading sustainable labels. And corporate push for lab-based and processed alternatives are much more profitable than leaving it out to nature for farmers not having to buy food additives, not having to buy the food because they just get their cows out. And the cows can eat whatever is out there. (1:12:53 - 1:13:12) My donkeys here, yeah, I never bought any food for them. The food is abundant. And even in the time of the year where it's not there, I make my hay in the summer and they can eat from it and I'll get some branches and roots and other things for them in the winter when they're lacking a little bit of minerals. (1:13:13 - 1:13:31) But the food is out there. We actually don't need the industrialized food production, especially when it comes to our plants and to our animals. So next, what should be done? Well, so some of the things we should do include policy shifts. (1:13:33 - 1:13:44) So this is hoping for some legitimate governments that could redirect subsidies to regenerative farmers. And this is something people can push for. There are some functioning governments. (1:13:44 - 1:13:55) There is some influence still happening from citizens. And we should push governments. If you're going to be subsidizing farming, why not subsidizing the farming that's good for all of us? We also want transparent labeling. (1:13:55 - 1:14:21) People need to know and have the right to know what we're eating, how it was made, where it came from. We should be able to tell the difference between industrial beef, printed beef like stuff and regeneratively raised beef. And we see the industry fighting against that labeling saying, no, no, no, we're going to use our lobbying power to change labeling rules, to fast track things, to get them by the regulation and examination. (1:14:23 - 1:14:36) Education and advocacy is super important. We all need to know the true cost of industrial farming and we're all in this together. So we all have to help steer the ship towards a sustainable future for ourselves and for our descendants. (1:14:37 - 1:15:11) As well, there are market incentives and brands and retailers who want to earn our trust, who want us to be their customers for a good reason. It's not just the bottom line of the price. Who can provide a thing that looks like the tomato the cheapest? And if people are buying their products that way, it's what you're going to get because making a thing that looks like a tomato cheap is a lot less expensive, is a lot less toxic, contains a whole bunch of chemicals you didn't mean to eat and lacks a lot of flavor as well as lacks a lot of nutrients. (1:15:11 - 1:15:33) I mean, sometimes you're talking 10 times or more key nutrients like vitamin A in a carrot and things like that. If it's grown organically and naturally as opposed to industrial style farming. And so both as consumers and as retailers that want to keep us as consumers, we want to know that this is sort of stuff we want in our world. (1:15:33 - 1:15:49) This is sort of stuff we want in our mouths and in our kids. Absolutely. So what's the conclusion next? Well, over off a short-term methane reduction but with significant safety ethical environment concerns. (1:15:50 - 1:16:08) Long-term impacts on cattle, humans and ecosystems remain unclear. So meaning they're unknown. So please, if you've listened to the entire presentation, prioritize transparency, independent research and sustainable farming practice. (1:16:09 - 1:16:20) There is a better way. And just as a little disclaimer, bover use in different companies might differ in the future. The summary was established by the facts in spring 2025. (1:16:21 - 1:16:47) Please check yourself about the current use of the supermarket brands in your area. And you can also have a look at the slides if you want to with some additional information and references. So anything to conclude, Mark, from our session? Well, I think I'm going to be choosy about the products I eat. (1:16:48 - 1:17:02) I'm going to be choosy about the meat that I eat. I think there's a lot to be said for eating a smaller amount of good natural food than a large amount of garbage. And I think that's the key for people like, well, natural food is more expensive. (1:17:02 - 1:17:22) Well, eat less of it, because it actually turns out that a human who eats a smaller high quality diet lives a long, healthy life and feels good doing it. Whereas compared to somebody who eats a lot of cheap slop, factory food, industrial farm food, they feel it too. So I'm going to keep those practices up. (1:17:22 - 1:17:40) And I want to continue to encourage my friends who have cattle, who have chickens and other things, please keep some of them safe. Let's make sure we have Noah's Ark through this time period as well for natural humans and for natural animals. Nicely said. (1:17:40 - 1:18:04) And yeah, please go out and support your local farmers that do work in a regenerative way. Form little cooperatives, make your own food in your garden, share the experiences, because all this knowledge has been lost. We need to basically dig back into securing the basics of our existence, and that's our food. (1:18:04 - 1:18:37) So, you know, even for folks in the cities, you'd be amazed, there are regenerative farmers near your city, maybe operating in or near your city, but a lot of folks are forming co-ops where everybody's getting a box for their family every week of regeneratively farmed, and they're often saving money. The money's going directly to the good farmers who are doing this good work, and people are getting healthy food. So if you feel like, well, geez, I live in downtown New York, what can I do? Well, have a look. (1:18:37 - 1:19:09) There's probably a co-op already bringing boxes of natural produce in on a weekly basis, and you could probably join it or start one yourself. And if you want to dig further into all these topics and many others, Mark, you have your own website, your own Twitter account, and well, I recently started my own sub stack and also a Twitter account. And please feel free to visit the World Council for Health website for updates on many, many urgent issues for humanity. (1:19:09 - 1:19:35) The links to all of this will be put under the interview. And well, I thank you, Mark, for it's always such a pleasure to work with you for a very deep evening that made me even think and made me maybe being touched by just listening to our voices. So thank you very much. (1:19:36 - 1:19:44) Well, thank you, Christof. It's a mutually enlightening experience. And thanks to everyone at the Iron Wire Daily. (1:19:44 - 1:19:55) This is the TruthRx, fairly exciting. This is our second episode. And we look forward to bringing a lot more great information your way through the Iron Wire Daily. (1:19:55 - 1:20:06) Thanks for subscribing. If you haven't checked out the Iron Wire Daily and you're seeing this somewhere else, please go to the Iron Wire Daily and subscribe. Bye-bye.